I appreciate the point of order that was raised. Let me be clear that I am giving an opinion, but to put the opinion in a bright light, the sort of thing that has been claimed to fall within a national security exemption, whether under section 15 of the access act or section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, for the purposes of the Amnesty lawsuit, is something like this: despite positive developments, the overall human rights situation in Afghanistan deteriorated in 2006.
I don't for the life of me see how words like those could possibly implicate the national security of Canada. It is obvious that the national security exemption--whether out of the Access to Information Act or the Canada Evidence Act, whether before the Information Commissioner or the Federal Court--is being utterly abused to construe a sentence like that one as a national security matter.